I had a paywalled Crikey article on Friday on the religion factor in the election result, drawing on results of the Australian National University’s Australian Election Study survey. Among other things, it had this to say:
The results from the 2016 survey provide some support for the notion, popular on the right of the Liberal Party, that Malcolm Turnbull brought the government to the brink of defeat by losing religious voters, who appear to have flocked back to the party under Morrison. Notably, the fact that non-religious voters trusted Turnbull a lot more than they did Abbott did not translate into extra votes for the Coalition, whereas a two-party swing to Labor of 7% was recorded among the religiously observant.
The charts below expand upon the survey data featured in the article, showing how Labor’s two-party preferred has compared over the years between those who attend religious services several times a year or more (“often”), those who do so less frequently (“sometimes”), and those who don’t do it at all (“never”).
Some other post-election observations:
• Rosie Lewis of The Australian reports the looming Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into the election will examine the three-week pre-polling period and the extent of Clive Palmer’s campaign spending. There is not, it would seem, any appetite to explore the debilitating phenomenon of fake news proliferating on social media, for which Australia arguably experienced a watershed moment during the campaign through claims Labor had a policy to introduce a “death tax”. This is explored in depth today in a report in The Guardian and an accompanying opinion piece by Lenore Taylor. That said, not all of the mendacity about death taxes was subterranean, as demonstrated by this official Liberal Party advertisement.
• As best as I can tell, all votes for the House of Representatives have been counted now. There was a fall in the official turnout rate (UPDATE: No, actually — it’s since risen to 91.9%, up from 91.0% in 2016), which, together with the fact that not all votes had been counted at the time, gave rise to a regrettable article in the Age-Herald last week. However, as Ben Raue at the Tally Room explores in depth, the turnout rate reflects the greater coverage of the electoral roll owing to the Australian Electoral Commission’s direct enrolment procedures. This appears to have succeeded to some extent in increasing the effective participation rate, namely votes cast as a proportion of the eligible population rather than those actually enrolled, which by Raue’s reckoning tracked up from 80.0% in 2010 to 83.2% – an enviable result by international standards. However, it has also means a larger share of the non-voting population is now on the roll rather than off it, and hence required to bluff their way out of a fine for not voting.
• The rate of informal voting increased from 5.0% to 5.5%, but those seeking to tie this to an outbreak of apathy are probably thinking too hard. Antony Green notes the shift was peculiar to New South Wales, and puts this down to the proximity of a state election there, maximising confusion arising from its system of optional preferential voting. The real outlier in informal voting rates of recent times was the low level recorded in 2007, which among other things causes me to wonder if there might be an inverse relationship between the informal voting rate and the level of enthusiasm for Labor.
a r says:
Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 4:36 pm
in an economy with unemployment, inflation and interest rates all lower than three years previously
Some of those stats probably need to be challenged.
Unemployment may be “lower” in terms of “people who want a job and have (any kind of) job”. But what about underemployment/the number of people who want full-time employment but can only get part-time or casual? Or the number of people unable to make ends meet despite having full-time employment? Or the number of people forced to take multiple jobs in order to get either something like full-time hours or enough money to pay the bills?
I suspect we’re going backwards on pretty much all of those. What good is “lower unemployment” if the number of people in financial stress is growing due to a combination of underemployment, slow wage growth, and inflation?
—————————————
All of these are excellent points, which need to be highlighted in the media much more in this next three years than they did in the last three.
But the indicators I mentioned do seem to have a good correlation with election results since 1961 (2013 excepted). All three go up, the govt gets kicked out; a majority of them go down, the govt is returned; only one goes down, mixed results. It’s hardly an exact or infallible rule, but then, how is that worse than trying to infer election outcomes from polling trends these days?
As for the substance of the current economic debate in this country, I agree with the points Bill Shorten and Labor constantly made, about it only working well for the wealthiest 10% or so of Australians. But as for swinging voters who decide elections, I think they tolerate Coalition governments as long as they don’t immediately fear joblessness, or as long as they are not too tightly squeezed by skyrocketing costs of living or housing. Myself, I think those voters still gave this government the benefit of the doubt in these scores. But that doubt may disappear before 2022 rolls along.
Setka now has Albo, McManus, Andrews and Kenneally all calling for his resignation. I imagine he will be expelled from the ALP but how does that leave the CFMMEU ? Do they have to send someone else to Labor meetings?
However, Mr Setka conceded he did say – in a union meeting – that lawyers had told him laws had been too skewed against women in the past and were now – in the wake of the Victorian royal commission into family violence and Ms Batty’s campaigns – skewed against men. But he insisted this was not a criticism of Ms Batty.
—————————–
Okay I get it Setka claims to be quoting a third person or persons but why did he need to say it, what does it have to do with construction union members what some lawyers are saying in passing, Setka claims he wasn’t criticising Batty, I call B.S on that because if he wasn’t then he could have excluded her name from the comment, he should be big enough to admit he was wrong and to apologise both to Ms Betty and to the wider community for being a frog or he will stand out as what is wrong with the union movement as it tries to connect with a modern workforce with modern standards.
Rex
“The problem is finding a candidate with the guts to run against him.”
You’d want to be in the union equivalent of the witness protection program to run against Setka.
True.
Victoria seems to have an insider view to the union, so she might be able to give some insights as to whether there is such a candidate.
Oh yes people like meher baba think they are so clever don’t they and any body that doesn’t buy into their theory (which is essentially just lifted straight from oped pages of the Murdoch rags) is a bore.
All the Hawke governments pro market reforms had bipartisan support, the one area of clear policy difference was health, indeed had the coalition fallen into line over health Labor would probably have been out on their arse in 1990.
But according to our resident know it all people don’t want socialist schemes like medicare.
In 2007 Labor got back into power opposing further Labor market deregulation but according to Mr Baba that was a mistake people want more “market” Labor should not only have supported Howard on the issue but proposed to go even further.
At the state election before last in QLD Labor came back from the dead largely by opposing the LNP plan of 99 year leases for state assets, Labor campaigned around keeping them in public ownership, indeed the election was virtually a de facto referendum on the issue as hardly any other matter got a look in.
According to meher know it all Labor should have supported the LNP plan because to oppose it would make them look socialist. if they had followed this advice they would still be in opposition with probably about fifteen seats.
The truth is Labor become what Mr Baha wants then to be their only hope is to stumble into power by default, they will not win and will not deserve to win.Mr Baha can’t see the wood for the trees.
Nicholas says:
Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 2:15 pm
…..
The Greens’ criticisms of the ALP are substantive.
If the ALP had been more vigorous and articulate they would have been able to get their message across.
The Green party yes; but does the average Green voter want to see Labor destroyed?
A more vigorous and articulate ALP highlighting the damage done by the Greens to environmental outcomes and progressive politics may not be what he Greens want. The Greens partisans seem to be putting a lot of effort into denying the damage done.
The Greens don’t seem to want to take their prize.
https://www.pollbludger.net/2019/06/09/election-plus-three-weeks/comment-page-25/#comment-3200924
Boerwar
Morrison orders Dutton to counsel Pazullo over intimidating phone calls.
How good is that?
Clearly said calls failed to reach the shall not be reported on objective?
lizzie @ #1244 Tuesday, June 11th, 2019 – 5:16 pm
Oh, I haven’t been watching the ABC. They are a tame lapdog of the government now. Various of the commercial TV shows like The Project are doing politics better than the ABC these days.
Anyway, from a Labor perspective, they are on the front foot with this and Morrison can say whatever he wants in a self-serving fashion about the unions, but his side of politics hands aren’t squeaky clean and it behoves Labor spokespeople to go after this with a vengeance once the John Setka matter is dealt with.
Labor just has to have a roll call of dodgy employers, exploitative practices and the like ready to roll out EVERY time Morrison alludes to the unions being dodgy. Fight fire with fire and watch them get burnt in the blowback. 🙂
The trouble is with first preferences goes the federal funding. People giving their first preferences to the Greens are not giving the funding to the environment; they are funding a party that aim to destroy Labor, nothing more and nothing less.
Funding to support the same goal as the Liberal party.
In Australia today there are 1.1 million underemployed, 1.1 million marginally attached to the labour force, and 700,000 unemployed.
These 2.9 million Australians are unwilling and unwitting conscripts in an effort to maintain stable prices.
It is good to have stable prices but it is immensely wasteful to secure price stability in this way.
It is possible and desirable to have an unemployment rate that is never above 2 percent and underemployment and marginal attachment rates that hover around zero.
The way to do it is to set up a Job Guarantee whereby the federal government makes an unconditional offer of living wage employment to everyone who wants employment.
The employers in the program would be local governments, state governments, NGOs, not for profit social enterprises, cooperatives… anyone except for-profit firms (it is important that it doesn’t degenerate into a wage subsidy scheme).
It is a good idea to be very creative and imaginative when we think of what counts as a valid job.
Caring for children, elderly relatives, and relatives with disabilities could be a paid Job Guarantee job if a person wanted it to.
The JG could validate and affirm caring work that is currently hidden and underappreciated.
Participating in education and training could be a paid Job Guarantee job if a person wanted it to.
Planning, launching and consolidating a small enterprise could be a paid Job Guarantee job if a person wanted it to.
There would be a panoply of Job Guarantee related to social and community services, environmental services, artistic and cultural services, and small-scale public works.
The employer and the jobseeker would design a role around the jobseeker’s interests, preferences, and abilities.
For the vast majority of people, a Job Guarantee job would be a transition job – a stepping stone to a higher paid job in the private sector or in the regular public sector.
But there would be no obligation to move on. If a person wanted to do a Job Guarantee job on a long term basis there would be nothing stopping them.
A Job Guarantee would make it easy for people to create a role that is rich in meaning and purpose, that serves an obvious public good, that has positive social interactions, and that has relevant and rewarding opportunities for learning and development.
Macroeconomically the Job Guarantee would have one purpose: to be an automatic stabiliser that ensues that the federal government is automatically doing precisely the correct amount of spending to achieve full employment with stable prices.
When the private sector is recovering, federal government spending would automatically fall as people leave the Job Guarantee for higher paid jobs elsewhere.
Great to note there have been no polls since the real one. Maybe the pollsters and their media masters fear push back.
Guess there will be one in the next couple of weeks. Albo vs ScoMo, Coalition vs ALP, PPM and so on . And no doubt some polling on free press vs national security.
I hope none of them are plastered over the front pages, and dominate debate. There are bigger things that matter.
Democracy works through competition for votes. The Greens competing with the ALP is giving ALP voters more democratic choice, which is good for democracy. No party is irreplaceable in a democracy, otherwise it is not a real democracy but a rigged system.
nath says:
Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 3:29 pm
zoomster
says:
Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 3:26 pm
C@
Yes, a bit hard to find any evidence that anyone in the inner city is particularly upset by the SDA or Kitching.
It doesn’t, for example, explain the 15% swing against the Greens in Cooper.
____________________________________
There are plenty of well informed people in the inner city. Far more so than in rural bumcrackland. Those that changed to the ALP in Cooper were clearly not rusted on greens voters, but hopefully they will return
————————————————
Don’t know if that is really the case because political and electoral analysis find rural MP’s usually enjoy a high name recognition than city based MP’s do.
The big problems with Mr Baha is he is looking at one election on isolation and ignoring everything else that has occurred in federal politics over the last twelve years.
So let me walk him back through history.
In 2007 Labor reclaim office on the back of an old school social democratic issue wages, working conditions, job security.
2009 Abbot becomes Coaqlition leader the Tories oppose an ETS the Rudd bubble quickly bursts.
2010 Labor comes within a bees dick of being a one term government.I nit’s second term Labor push om with the green agenda and introduce carbon pricing (after promising not to, meaning no one will ever believe anything they say again)They also introduce a quasi socialist ndis.
Abbott had a good enough radar to support the ndis (even though every fibre in his body was no doubt against it) but continued to smash labor over carbon pricing .
2013 Labor get flogged.
2016 Labor bounce back, mainly thanks to a combination of Abbott over reach(especially the medicare co payment which scared people) and leadershit combined with the fact Turnbull had to dodge around ebergy polict because of his past vocal support of carbon pricing.
2019 Turnbull is gone and the gloves come off again, Labor run hard ion the issue the last week their ads exclusively focus on climate change and they go back wards with the biggest swings against them in areas with the most resource dependent economies, but you can ignore all that and believe what you want to believe.
I said on this very site back in 2010 that carbon pricing was electoral poison for Labor, that only a tory government could introduce it and survive, and that it had the potential to keep Labor in opposition for a generation and I am being proved to be spot on.
A generation is 30 years, why not get back to us in 2040.
The stuff with the Raids was an act of stupidity……… Dutton and Morrison seemed to support them and any outcomes…… that did not quite work….. so damage control
oh Peter…… well done……. now for Public consumption the reverse
they cannot tell the truth………
\
Tom the first and best @ #1263 Tuesday, June 11th, 2019 – 6:20 pm
Maybe. But the competition needs some new rules.
Politicians and political parties are all too willing to lie, and it’s too easy to spread lies around through social media campaigns and hyper-targeted advertising. And the government has far too much power in terms of keeping the electorate in the dark about…pretty much whatever it feels like.
There’s no competition if voters are deliberately misinformed or kept uninformed.
a r @ #1268 Tuesday, June 11th, 2019 – 7:00 pm
And the thing that really got me was that this government were basically thumbing their nose at the nation in the run-up to the election with their overtly political appointments to various tribunals and boards, when we thought it was because they believed they were going to lose the election but instead, as we have now learned, they knew they were on track to win and they didn’t care what the optics of those moves were like, they were going to do it anyway.
In other words, they were holding the nation in complete contempt.
C@tmomma @ #1269 Tuesday, June 11th, 2019 – 7:05 pm
And the nation said fine by me.
adrian @ #1270 Tuesday, June 11th, 2019 – 7:07 pm
As long as I can maintain my lifestyle. 😐
I can see now why the Labor Party have had enough of John Setka:
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/it-s-taken-far-too-long-to-take-action-on-setka-20190611-p51wlb.html
Honestly, there are plenty of other union fish in the sea that want to do good things for workers but not be ignorant pigs at the same time.
Nothing is forever, and big changes can emerge with surprising speed.
Right now we can say that the federal LNP has been dominating federal Labor by controlling the national government for 48 years since 1949 compared with Labor’s 22 years since 1949.
But the roles could be reversed. Labor could become the natural party of government.
They key thing that needs to happen is that Labor must establish supremacy as a macroeconomic manager.
If they can do that, the LNP’s advantage evaporates.
The LNP actually has a very tenuous grip on their reputation for good economic management. It is mythology and misconceptions that account for the public’s view that the LNP is better for the economy. The public’s beliefs in this regard are awash with errors.
All it would take is one macroeconomically astute Labor Government to abolish involuntary unemployment forever. The only unemployment that would ever exist is frictional unemployment, whereby people spend short amounts of time (weeks, not months) between jobs, searching for the optimal job opportunity. There would be less than 2 percent of the labour force in this category (frictional unemployment) at any given time. This would stabilize prices more effectively than our current approach, which is to deliberately cause a large number of people to be unemployed or underemployed in order to put downward pressure on prices.
Once people got used to an unemployment rate that’s less than 2 percent, with no under-employment and no marginally attached to the labour force, there would be no going back.
It wouldn’t be possible to use unemployment or the threat of unemployment as a means of disciplining workers.
National output would rise markedly under conditions of full employment.
It wouldn’t be possible for the LNP to best Labor in the economic management stakes.
It would be obvious to everyone that the ALP is capable of managing a fully employed, dynamic economy that is underpinned by a rich array of public services and public infrastructure projects.
The LNP would be reduced to exploiting national security issues to drum up votes.
But Labor would have an easier time drumming up fear of what the LNP could do to the economy.
Labor would be able to argue very plausibly that the LNP cannot be trusted to refrain from using unemployment and underemployment as tools for disciplining and disempowering workers.
The LNP cannot be trusted to ensure that public services and public infrastructure are properly funded.
The LNP cannot be trusted to empower people to do jobs that are meaningful, purposeful, and rewarding.
C@t:
I gave my views about Setka a couple of years ago when his appalling behaviour started coming to public attention. This caused some PBers to have a go at me for being anti-union and anti-worker. Whatever. Those people can eat their words now.
I don’t see the need to restate my views, but nothing I’ve seen from Setka since has caused me to change my mind about him, including his pro-worker tweets that were enthusiastically posted here by sundry Bludgers. Put simply, the construction union is not sending Labor its best people if Setka is its offering.
You know what also pisses me off? That Pezullo simply gets ‘counselled’ by his Minister mate, Dutton. And the lettuce leaf he will be ‘counselled’ with couldn’t get any limper.
‘fess,
I don’t know if I was one of those Bludgers, but if I was I apologise for trusting that Setka was being misrepresented by the media. But I don’t think I was because I have always abhorred violence against women and especially domestic violence.
I love the way business confidence and “real” economic conditions are completely at odds with each other. One took an upturn after the election, the other keeps on a downward trend. I wonder which one has the better measure, the actual real world situation or a bunch of Lib voters just hoping a bit of Scumo’s miracle rubs off on them.
Lucky Creed @ #1265 Tuesday, June 11th, 2019 – 6:25 pm
In hindsight, it needed to be made clearer that without action on global warming, this might very well end up being the last generation.
Although most Australians would still probably have voted for extinction.
What can you say in the face of such wilfully ignorant stupidity? 🙁
C@t
What pisses me off is how expensive lettuce is getting. Don’t mention the drought.
Well we are up to probably nine when the next elections rolls around and Labor are very unlikely to win it( not enough marginal seats in QLD all the LNP seats are safe now except Brisbane) so they are already a third of the way there and after the next election almost certainly well on the way to half a generation.
C@t:
I don’t recall you being one of those commenters.
Tom the first and best says:
Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 6:20 pm
Democracy works through competition for votes. The Greens competing with the ALP is giving ALP voters more democratic choice, which is good for democracy. No party is irreplaceable in a democracy, otherwise it is not a real democracy but a rigged system.
That is fair enough. It is also fair enough for Labor to point out the damage being done to progressive politics and the environment by the Green party constantly attacking labor. It is up to the voters to decide if the actions of the Green party is acceptable.
@Player one -If the situation is really that desperate what Australia does as far as domestic carbon emissions is going to make fuck all difference anyway.
Lucky Creed @ #1286 Tuesday, June 11th, 2019 – 7:43 pm
You think it’s ok to supply thermal coal to others so they can destroy the environment ?
Lucky Creed says:
Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 7:43 pm
@Player one -If the situation is really that desperate what Australia does as far as domestic carbon emissions is going to make fuck all difference anyway.
A smart country will be developing he solutions to sell to the would. A dumb country will try and continue to sell the problem while the rest of the would develops the solution and moves away from what we sell.
Which is Australia to be?
Oh dear, poor Albo, been hauled in to give a grovelling explanation to headmistress Sales….Labor never learns..
Nervous, jittery, stumbling over words, earnest, eager to gain headmistress Sales’ approval….FMD
Imagine Keating or Hawke showing up for one of these gigs….
Albanese should have told the ABC to shove it. Scrotty would have.
Drought? You mean where farmers who trash their land to the edge of oblivion, vote for a changing climate then put their hand out for help because they say they didnt put enough away in the good times as they were too busy undercutting each other?
https://www.maitlandmercury.com.au/story/6211933/barren-and-desolate-farmers-facing-a-tough-winter-as-new-support-measures-announced/
I used to think about 50% of farmers were bad eggs. The more I meet, that percentage rises.
Lucky Creed @ #1283 Tuesday, June 11th, 2019 – 7:43 pm
That’s so not the point.
Australia’s job is to lead by example. Or if it can’t do that then get out of the game and let the competent nations play.
Also unrelated points about the economic benefits of getting to the renewables party early versus what inevitably happens if Australia goes “la-la-la I can’t here you, I’m going to just keep mining and burning coal” while the rest of the world moves on.
Drought aid for this so-far unnamed drought is now in excess of $7 billion.
Oh my happy aunt. Do we have to go back to lesson 1? Seriously, 7 year olds have the ability to understand this.
Pezzullo is a product of what Home Affairs is under the carriage of Morrison, now Dutton. The ethos seems to be that they can get away with almost anything under the guise of national security.
Albo and Dutton’s shadow need to inform the electorate in no uncertain terms that Home Affairs is an existential threat to our democracy. No more of bipartisanship for the sake of giving the impression that Labor’s as tough as the Tories about national security.
I have nothing against former coppers; my nephew is a serving one. But Dutton is a sneaky grub, reveling in the power of his office, sending, for example, convicted felons back to their country of birth, on occasions when they came to Australia as kids – this being extra-curial punishment.
With the AFP media raids, there’s no better opportunity to politically cash in on Dutton, and the agencies he’s responsible for. Who knows, even Murdoch might come to the party.
Frednk @7:50.
“A smart country will be developing he solutions to sell to the would. A dumb country will try and continue to sell the problem while the rest of the would develops the solution and moves away from what we sell.”
Yes.
“Which is Australia to be?”
I think we already know.
mundo @ #1286 Tuesday, June 11th, 2019 – 7:51 pm
Don’t usually watch 7.30 for obvious reasons.
Is this a fair representation?
The big problem with the global warming issue is the green movements dishonesty around the issue.
I remember back in the eighties when ozone depletion was the main headline issue.But that was an easy problem to solve because cfc’s played a minor role in the global economy and there were reasonably good substitutes available.
The situation with c02 emissions is very different Fossil fuels provide the vast majority of the energy that powers the global economy and underpins the welfare of humanity as a whole.
As much as the green movement might like to believe otherwise there simply aren’t inexpensive substitutes for fossil fuels in many of the applications in which they are currently used.
Of the options we currently have that can serve as substitutes in a number of different roles currently served by fossil fuels nuclear power is by far the best and offers the potential for significant emissions reduction without causing a major fall in living standards.
Unfortunately nuclear is opposed not just by fossil fuel interests but by most (not all) of the very greens who produce the most alarming predictions about the costs of doing nothing.
There is a viable solution to this problem, but most greens don’t want to go there because they want the large reductions in living standards, that is their miserable long term goal.
Confessions says:
Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 7:25 pm
I gave my views about Setka a couple of years ago when his appalling behaviour started coming to public attention. This caused some PBers to have a go at me for being anti-union and anti-worker. Whatever. Those people can eat their words now.
—————————————–
It is frustrating when that happens, I find if you try to point out where the union movement can or should be doing better the response is “you are anti-union or a right winger or but its the law’s fault” Such poor self-awareness isn’t helping the unions during a period where they should be enjoying growing membership but instead they are not.
Lucky Creed
If your assumption is correct, then there is no solution.
I don’t believe you are correct.
There is however a real risk however that Australia will be the dumb country.
Here’s an interesting article from late 2017. It might have been linked here a while back. It makes the case for progressives being aggressive in putting the case for climate action, rather like the reactionaries are on “national security”.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/11/10/16627256/conservatives-climate-change-persuasion
It’s written about America but much would apply here.
A few other interesting observations made:
– no one outside Washington think tanks actually believes in “free markets”.
– The Right don’t care about deficits, it’s just a stick they use to beat up on progressives.
– The Right don’t do bipartisan. On “National Security”, they don’t beg progressives to join them, they dare them to oppose. From their point of view, either result is a win.
I also learnt a new word, ‘agonism’. The authors suggest that progressives need to practice it much more than they do. I can see one big problem with that in Australia – the bad guys own all the big megaphones.
mundo:
You’ve been critical of Shorten on numerous occasions. It now seems that you have Albanese in your cross-hairs. Albo’s been the leader for a dog-watch. As a matter of course, he’s going to be nervous about what I understand to be his first appearance on “7.30”. You need to give him some leeway, unless, that is, you’re just yet another anti-Labor stirrer.
Steve777:
Good to see you again.
Can I say how much I hate the terms “green” and “green movement”.
If we want to maintain standards of living that are even close to what we have now we must reduce our impact on the earths natural ecology and drastically reduce carbon emissions.
If our economy can not withstand a reduction in our ecological footprint then it’s a pretty fragile and f’ed up economy.
I personally do not have a problem with Nuclear Power. We mine the stuff, sell it, why not use it. I wonder tho’ if it is just a smokescreen.